Re: tor

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () cs columbia edu>]

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:48:58 -0400
Andrew D Kirch <trelane () trelane net> wrote:

> Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote:
> >   
> > > sadly, naively turning up tor to help folk who wish to be
> > > anonymous in hard times gets one a lot of assertive email from
> > > self-important people who wear formal clothes.
> > >
> > > folk who learn this the hard way may find a pointer passed to me
> > > by smb helpful, <http://www.chrisbrunner.com/?p=119>.
> > >     
> >
> > If bittorrent of copyrighted material is the most illegal thing you
> > helped facilitate while running tor, and all you got was an
> > assertive e-mail because of it, you should consider yourself
> > extremely lucky. 
> >
> > Anonymity against privacy invasion and for political causes sure
> > sounds like a great concept, but in reality it presents too
> > tempting a target for abuse. If you choose to open up your internet
> > connection to anyone who wants to use it, you should be prepared to
> > be held accountable for what those anonymous people do with it. I'm
> > sure you don't just sell transit to any spammer who comes along
> > without researching them a little first, why should this be any
> > different.
> You might also consider asserting your right to common carrier
> immunity under 47USC230. 
OK -- I looked at that part of the US Code
(http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html).  Apart from the fact
that the phrase "common carrier" does not occur in that section,
subparagraph (f)(2) says:

        Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand
        any law pertaining to intellectual property.

Perhaps you're referring to the law exempting ISPs from liability for
user-created content?  (I don't have the citation handy.)  If so,
remember that that law requires response to take-down notices.


                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb